If facebook only shows content you agree with, it's creating social bubbles where everyone is cheering each other on and criticism is not allowed, and you end up with anti-vax groups.

And if facebook emphasizes content you engage with (albeit negatively), you end up with anecdotes like yours.

Facebook is a tool, use it as such rather than being entitled and feeling disempowered. You can hide people from your timelines, get "less messages like these" and more.

Entitled is a loaded word. That makes it seem like the user is unreasonable and he should take whatever facebook gives him. Be quiet you don't matter, you are lucky they allowed you on the platform.

Is it unreasonable to expect facebook to be able to determine the tone of the conversation. They probably already do this or are in the process of researching this. This is a great feature and I look forward to getting content aligned with my mood. I'm mad, show me angry posts, I'm nervous show me calm posts. I'm bored show me exciting videos. Maybe a box on top how do you feel to determine current mood.

Users complaining give free feedback. As a developer it helps shape the product.

I absolutely think the user is unreasonable in this context. what about people who actually enjoy discussing other people's conflicting opinions? (maybe hard to believe that exists any more, even moreso on facebook, but still...) how would you allow this positive engagement to keep happening but avoid OP's example of negative engagement?

the tools are there on facebook to control the content of your feed to quite an extent. if you don't use this and demand that facebook change its system to adjust the feed for everyone based on your personal tastes, yes I think that's entitled.

not saying I like or even use Facebook, but still.

> Be quiet you don't matter, you are lucky they allowed you on the platform.

That's actually the feeling I get from YouTube when you try to Like a video when not signed in: "Like this video? Sign in to make your opinion count." -- I always found it mildly condescending.

> If facebook only shows content you agree with, it's creating social bubbles where everyone is cheering each other on and criticism is not allowed, and you end up with anti-vax groups.

Just because the solution would be hard or complex doesn't mean FB gets to continue its problematic behaviour.

> Facebook is a tool, use it as such

It is not. It is a corporation and you definitely don't get to use it like a tool.

At its most charitable, it is a tool like a beehive is a tool to make honey. Which are less dangerous than Facebook and still require protective gear to operate.

and if they optimized for me clicking away from Facebook, and visiting less?

both the examples you've listed are still with the goal of having people spend more time on facebook

Is there a mechanism to show a linear list of posts, sorted by time descending, of the direct posts of everyone I am friends with?

Anti-vaxxers are relentlessly criticized everywhere. They don’t have a protective social bubble. The criticism they receive from people they assume are brainwashed idiots only strengthens their beliefs.

the reason they're able to dismiss criticism is because there's a bubble of people and content (blogposts, videos) that are being fed to them via social media, gradually convincing them that they are right. if social media like Facebook showed a more "objective" collection of content in your feed, you would end up with <1% anti-vax, flat-earth, climatechange-denial etc. content, and it becomes much harder to hold on to this conviction.

I'm not disagreeing with your point that FB sometimes ranks content more highly when it is likely to increase engagement at the expense of your long term happiness and continued use of the site. The point I am making is that FB is well aware, doesn't want that, and devotes far more resources to fixing it than to increasing "engagement".

Also "engagement" is not the same as addiction. People who follow more close friends are more engaged on FB, but they are not addicted.

> Also "engagement" is not the same as addiction.

Agreed, but the point is that FB's algorithm optimizing for "engagement" is in fact also optimizing for addiction[0]. And so are many others of a certain type of industry that includes YouTube, FB, Instagram, etc. It's not quite social networks, but a common factor seems to be that they're ad-funded and highly automated.

[0] and I believe it is currently way beyond our state of the art to design an algorithm that does not have this unwanted property.

> Also "engagement" is not the same as addiction. People who follow more close friends are more engaged on FB, but they are not addicted.

That's debatable. I think people who spend hours pouring through pictures from thousands of acquaintances and commenting can be considered addicted, especially when it becomes difficult to get their attention from it. I see it with people over 50 most often, I think because of an internal desire to feel connected with people who they drifted apart from years ago, or to live vicariously through others.

Facebook is not the only place for combative online interactions.

Marlboro isn't the only brand for cancer sticks.

Sorry, but you come out terrible "naive".

> On what basis are you claiming that that most teams at FB are optimising the product for well being as opposed to ‘engagement’ (addiction)? Do you have first hand knowledge? Do you know the people involved? Do you have citations?

OP answers this in his first paragraph.

> bla bla I left facebook bla bla

You are arguing that "the algorithm" didn't read your mind and figured out you are actually "mad" at your friend, not simply interacting.

ps: sentiment out of bodies of text is not a terrible old thing, is fairly new.